those unborn at the passage of the constitution or to
those born on or after a date therein designated.[93]

Again joining issue with Senator Willey, Mr. Lane pointed out that the
same situation arose in Kansas when in February, 1856, the people
adopted a constitution providing for the emancipation of the slaves on
the fourth of the following July. The slaves, however, handled the
situation. They told their masters that since they should become free
after the date designated, they would not permit themselves to be
taken out of the State prior to that date.[94] Mr. Lane did not doubt
the capacity to do likewise on the part of the slaves then being
considered.

An interesting spectacle presented itself when the two Senators from
Virginia engaged in spirited debate. Mr. Carlile desired that the
State be admitted under the terms of the constitution framed at
Wheeling, the alternative being that the people of the State should
have the new terms submitted to them for approval. He believed that
Mr. Willey's amendment was incomplete as it stood, and that an
amendment in conformity with the one presented by Mr. Wade was
necessary, providing, of course, that it was the sense of the Senate
to admit the State only upon conditions. He took issue with Mr.
Willey's assertion that the passage of Mr. Wade's amendment would be
followed by a wholesale delivery of slaves to purchasers further
South.[95] In the meanwhile Mr. Wade's amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Carlile now began overtly his campaign of obstruction and
opposition to the admission of the State into the Union. He offered as
an amendment to that of his colleague to be inserted at the end of the
sixteenth line, the following words: "After the said ordinance shall
be submitted to the vote of the people in the said State of West
Virginia and be ratified by the vote of the majority of the people
thereof." The sinister motive underlying his proposal was clearly
perceived and ably met by Mr. Willey. He opposed the measure: first,
because of the unusual requirement of the majority vote of the people,
and, second, because of the new convention that would be required to
assent to the fundamental proposition, and the consequent new election
and additional costs to the people. The constitutional convention, he
argued, was still in existence, was still a legal body, and that,
therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the reference of the
matter beyond the jurisdiction thereof.[96]